Repository | Book | Chapter

Are we morally justified in killing fish and if so, for what purposes? We will not focus on the suffering that is done during the killing, but on the question whether death itself is harmful for fish. We need to distinguish two questions: (1) can death be considered a harm for fish; and (2) if so, how much of a harm is it? We will explore three lines of reasoning: (1) fish desire to stay alive; (2) death deprives fish of future happiness or goods; (3) something valuable is lost when fish are killed. Some argue that a being can form a desire to stay alive only when it has the capacity to be aware of itself as a distinct entity existing over time. We will cast doubt on this view: Do we value continued life because it is desirable or do we desire continued life because it is valuable? It seems more plausible that it is not the desire to live that matters, but being able to enjoy goods, and death thwarts future opportunities for enjoyment. This would entail that a being can have an interest in continued life, without actively being interested in it. Next, we will discuss the question how harmful death is for fish. A widely shared intuition is that it is worse to kill a human being or mammal than a fish, because human or mammal life is more valuable. But can we really account for this intuition?

DOI: 10.3920/978-90-8686-784-4_39

Full citation: